Memory Alpha:Files for deletion
Quadrant maps *File:Map alpha quadrant.jpg *File:Map beta quadrant.jpg *File:Map gamma quadrant.jpg *File:Map delta quadrant.jpg Non-canon fan made images, as stated here. - 09:34, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :I'm a big fan of not using "fanmade" images, but it should be noted that MA:IMAGE, apparently, does not state that such images mustn't be used. There's no direct statement about this on the policy page - even somewhat of the opposite, as "Describing Images" states that the author needs to be credited in case of "fan-created works" - and there's neither a link to, nor an explicit statement on, MA:CANON (unless the statement in "Invalid resources" counts). So, if this deletion suggestion goes through based on the "fanmade" claim, I will assume that MA:IMAGE should be clarified in that regard, and other "fanmade" images be suggested for deletion. If this does get added to the policy, and is not just a reason for deletion of these four images, specifically, I will support this deletion. -- Cid Highwind 11:28, January 11, 2012 (UTC) The image policy doesn't trump the canon policy, since the canon policy describes all accepted materials. "Fan-created works" would most likely be reproductions of canon images, so pretty much every logo and rank image we use. Are you suggesting we delete those now, or that the wording be changed to "reproductions" (or something similar)? - 11:41, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :First and foremost, I suggest that you find the specific rule that even applies in this case. The "Canon policy" talks about resources that are used to get information to be used in articles. The images in question here are not resources in that sense, because no new information is derived from them and put in the articles. Instead, they are just used to display canon information that we already know from other resources. Basically, to make a comparison between images and text, these images are not the James Dixon timeline (fanmade, thus invalid, resource), but rather similar to the text that we've written ourselves in all the articles we have (fanmade too, but not invalid because not a resource). -- Cid Highwind 11:55, January 11, 2012 (UTC) Images are resources because we do not describe the same detail the image conveys in the text. They are presenting new information in that regard. We've allowed reproductions of material used on screen because we want to be able to present that information in a manner that is useful to the reader. We don't want anyone to just be able to create something based on canon and use it here, that's the very definition of fanon. - 12:06, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :I don't really share that definition of "image resources" - but if we go through with it, all images would need to go that are images of rank insignia not seen on the show (like File:Tos radm.png), that are images of logos without a screenshot accompanying it so that everyone can check whether they really are faithful reproductions without adding stuff (like File:Breen Confederacy logo.png), that are images of alien scripts (like File:Bajoran script.gif), because those imply (=present new information) completeness and a specific order. -- Cid Highwind 12:44, January 11, 2012 (UTC) You know what, fuck it. Go ahead, see how well that works out for you. - 13:09, January 11, 2012 (UTC) ::While I can see the logic behind wanting to delete these images (and I'm personally undecided on the matter), saying that they're not canon isn't exactly accurate. Cid has a point: Right now, under our policies, they are actually acceptable. I'm not sure that policy is exactly as correct as it perhaps needs to be, but a number of our images do straddle the line between the two policies you guys are discussing. ::It's obviously getting a bit heated (both here and elsewhere), and I'd suggest that you both take a brief step back to calm down, re-present the arguments here, there, and everywhere on the matter, and let's come to a reasonable decision on things. -- sulfur 13:41, January 11, 2012 (UTC) ---- :Thanks for weighing in, sulfur. To re-present my argument: Basically I want that, whatever we do, we do it consistently. Here, we have a deletion suggestion based on reasoning that isn't currently supported by our rules, or at least that support isn't clearly spelled out by MA:IMAGE, where such stuff should be located. So, in my opinion, our options are: :#Change (or, if you think that this reasoning already is supported somehow, "clarify") the rules, so that they explicitly state that the reasoning given here is a proper reasoning. Then apply that new rule consistently to all images we have, not just these four. This is why I also brought up this point on the talk page of MA:IMAGE, complete with a suggestion on how exactly to rephrase the policy, and don't feel that doing so is "laying out a tantrum". I have nothing to re-present in that other discussion at the moment. :#Don't delete images based on invalid reasoning. Of course, a third option is to... :#Find another reason for deletion of these images. However, if we ignore the "fanmade" reasoning, we will have to talk about how the image that is now on articles like Alpha Quadrant is "better" than the image that is about to be deleted. I have given reasons for my opinion that (again, "fanmade" claim aside!) the current image is not better on Template talk:Quadrants image map, and don't feel the need to repeat myself there, either, unless a third party joins the discussion and requests it. :-- Cid Highwind 15:12, January 11, 2012 (UTC) I want Cid to go though the entire deletion log and list here every single image that has been deleted because it was either fan-made or non-canon. It seems all of those images shouldn't have been deleted, so we have to reconsider them all for "consistency". Cid should also list every single image he think would need to be deleted if these four are, since common sense and is out the window on this one and we're fine with gaming the system now. I've already gone through enough of MA's history in the last month to last me for awhile, and as far as I'm concerned the image showing the quadrants that was used on screen will always trump the images in question, regardless of what Cid thinks, so these remain unused as well. - 18:20, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :So much for calming down. Since I've now been accused of trying to bend or break our rules by "gaming the system", of throwing "a tantrum", of being generally insincere in my actions, and on top of that have been insulted as being dim-witted in barely disguised words, all by the same person and regarding the same topic, I guess it is now time for someone else to decide what happens with this whole charade. :Meanwhile, I surely will not compile two long lists of images just because you think it might be a fun thing to ask for. They would only show what I have been stated in my last comment, anyway - that we have less consistency than we should have in regards to what images we keep or don't keep. -- Cid Highwind 20:17, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :::I'm not sure I fully understand this matter at this time- but I would suggest that both parties in this matter take a 24 hour break from posting on this matter. I might have an opinion on this matter later- but for now there needs to be a break.--31dot 21:09, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :::Having looked over this and the other discussions, I'm going to offer my thoughts: I see nothing in MA:IMAGE that forbids fan-created images used for illustrative purposes(of something canon)- which these images were, and the rank insignia images are currently. In fact, the Describing images and Copyright portions of the policy seem to allow for fan-made images. :::I think there is a distinction between fan images used to illustrate a concept from canon and fan images of fan-created works- we're not dealing with Captain John Q. Public of the Starship Whatever here, or a map of the Whatsitsname Galaxy. Clearly we don't want that sort of thing- which I think constitutes most of the fan images that have been deleted. These four images are not that- they illustrate the rough locations of the Quadrants as described in canon, just as we illustrate rank insignia or emblems of governments. They aren't inventing canon, they are illustrating it to assist readers- which should be made clear(and MA:IMAGE would seem to require) :::MA:CANON describes what we accept as valid information- but I'm not really seeing where it states that canon information cannot be displayed in a fan-created image. After all, we write articles of text based on canon information- why can't images be created to illustrate canon information when necessary? Looking at the Invalid Resources part of MA:CANON I don't see how these images fit any of the points listed; they aren't fan blueprints and specifications, they aren't fan fiction, and they aren't a fan reference work. :::There might be other reasons to delete these images, but I have decided to oppose deleting them on non-canon grounds, as I don't see any policy where illustrations of canon are disallowed.--31dot 01:02, January 12, 2012 (UTC) :::As Sulfur said, clearly we are straddling a line here, and I believe this larger issue should be discussed- and possibly this discussion should be put on hold until that larger issue is settled. Just my opinion. --31dot 01:04, January 12, 2012 (UTC) I guess I could just replace this image with this one. It isn't canon, but it does point out the bussard collector a lot better now. Don't agree, too bad, I'll just play the wording of one policy off the spirit of another until you agree. There is clearly a difference between using this instead of this because it accurately reproduces what was seen in canon instead of just chooses a real image at random and labels it, but who gives shit? Are we sure the galaxy is oriented correctly in Cid's images? Who cares? We know that three particular arms of the galaxy are in the Alpha Quadrant, are they show clearly in Cid's images, and if so, why aren't they labeled as well? Doesn't fucking matter really, it's not canon. We should also bring back the real images of the and Ulysses Grant, since they can now be added as well because we're allowing non-canon images now. I'm done with this, go ahead and change the rules to replace the canon image with this crap, I'm not going to enforce this, so maybe Cid can actually be around more than once a week to complain about something for now on. - 02:05, January 12, 2012 (UTC) :::To clarify, if we clarify or otherwise change the policy to clear this up, I would go along with that- and there may be good reasons to do so, such as avoiding this kind of discussion.--31dot 02:24, January 12, 2012 (UTC) :I believe the example image fails to show what Archduk3 wants it to show. The image itself is not just "fanmade" (because of being an image of a model), it is also blurry, the detail it is supposed to show is off-center, there's a watermark in the lower right corner, the filename is inappropriate and the highlighting looks as if it was drawn by a retarded monkey. Of course this image would be deleted - but not for the reason of being "fanmade", but for the reason of generally being an unsalvageable mess. With that in mind, I have to ask Archduk3: if all those additional problems were removed - basically if the image was just this image with a decent-looking circle around the collector - and of course assuming that highlighting that detail makes sense in some context in the first place - then would you still vote for the deletion of that image? :Regarding the other stuff that has been brought up: :*''Are we sure the galaxy is oriented correctly in Cid's images?'' - If you had looked at the original image source, you would have noticed a link "Larger view (annotated)". You can check the orientation correctness for yourself, there - assuming that it even is important for the image. :*''We know that three particular arms of the galaxy are in the Alpha Quadrant, are they show clearly in Cid's images, and if so, why aren't they labeled as well?'' - Again, see the annotated version, which has two arms and a "spur" (basically a "minor arm") exactly where they should be. Again, if that even is important. As for not having them labelled - they aren't, because that's obviously not the point of that image. Or do you now want to argue that every image of an object needs to show every detail of it, or be a candidate for deletion? :Last but not least, I just have to point at the big fraking elephant in the room again. It's not my point that we desperately need to keep these images. My point is that we must not delete them for a false reasoning - which the "fanmade" reasoning currently is, at least until we've clarified our rules in that regard. Which (look, there's a second elephant) I brought up myself both here and at Memory Alpha talk:Image use policy#Policy clarification regarding "fanmade" images. So, yes, I agree with 31dot - we should settle that bigger issue first, and then talk about the deletion of these images again after that. -- Cid Highwind 20:17, January 12, 2012 (UTC) Continued :There hasn't been any progress on this discussion in nearly four weeks, and none on the policy discussion in ~three weeks. I ask the uninvolved admins to either remove this deletion suggestion as unsuccessful, or to participate in the policy discussion. :For what it's worth, the outcome so far of a semi-related discussion there has been that "uncited" images must not be deleted, but need to be added to some "not-to-be-used-until-cited" image category. If this is the way we want to handle things, we mustn't delete images that have one of those uncited images in their revision history, either - and, in fact, we mustn't delete past image revisions without first discussing them here, at all. -- Cid Highwind 14:39, February 6, 2012 (UTC) :To restate where it belongs - the image policy discussion is not over yet, and the images are currently unused because of that pending discussion. :#If the outcome of that discussion is that images such as these are allowed, they can be added back to articles - no need for deletion. :#If the outcome of that discussion is that images such as these are not allowed, then there's still the older image revision (like File:Map alpha quadrant.jpg, which I reverted to that earlier revision yesterday to help in this discussion). This image is not explicitly called "fan-made", but has been uncited for quite a while. It could be an "official" image from one of the early digital encyclopedias. In the ongoing policy discussion, it has been suggested that these images must not be deleted, but instead need to be orphaned and collected in some image category. :#Only if we scrap that idea of a "dustbin category" in addition to not allowing the "new" image revisions, these images should be deleted. In this case, though, I request that we explicitly add a sentence or two to our policies, stating that "being uncited for longer than X months is a valid deletion reason", so that we can deal with that sort of imagery much more quickly in the future. -- Cid Highwind 17:14, February 16, 2012 (UTC) ::I will restate what I said earlier; Encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) often have images that they themselves created- and the current wording of the policy seems to allow for that. As to the examples given above, the Titanic was not seen in canon so there shouldn't be a picture of it at all. As for President Grant, I would suggest that an image of a US $50 bill would be helpful, to show clearer what was seen in canon(just like recreations of blurry canon images are permitted)- but not just any image of President Grant. Lastly, Archduk's image of a bussard collector would be deleted on poor quality grounds. ::I'm not keen on the idea of permanent orphaned images- we should either keep and use them, or not. If there is agreement to use the image that is currently on the Quadrants articles, then I would agree with deleting the images in question.--31dot 17:37, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :The problem with the current image is that it doesn't show the quadrant arrangement as intuitively as either of the images we're talking about here does. The only "canon" labelled galaxy map I know of is to blurry to be of much use, and any "enhancement" of the current image is out of the question if these images are disallowed, too. So, I would only agree to keeping the current image if all "better" ones are disallowed by policy - thus the need to first get the policy discussion going again. -- Cid Highwind 18:01, February 16, 2012 (UTC) The only problem with the current image is that it isn't one Cid made, and that's the only reason we're still here. The canon policy explicitly says that "fan-made blueprints and specifications" are "invalid resources" and one poor wording choice in the image policy does not change that. The precedent established by consensus after consensus should have been more than enough for any long time user to understand that the wording of the image policy should have been tweaked to correct the error, instead of Cid's insistence that we have a months long pointless pissing contest because the images he said he was fine with deleting, in a map he doesn't even think we should have, can't be deleted because that would be a loss. This hasn't been about policy, or intent, of even these images, this is about how Cid Highwind is the fucking bureaucrat here and we better all toe the line. I'm not having it, and these images will not be used so long as I'm here, so they remain unused (because saying a discussion about if they should be used is use is only a desperate attempt to find something wrong with deleting them). - 00:18, February 17, 2012 (UTC) :On what do you base your claim that the image policy has "one poor wording choice" and was not deliberately worded that way(since that seems to be the crux of your argument)? :And by the way, if anyone uses obscene language to refer to another user in this matter, they will get a block. I'm not having that. If one can't make their point without it, then they should wait until they can. --31dot 00:48, February 17, 2012 (UTC) How do you know that the image policy was deliberately worded to allow images such as these? That is the crux of Cid's argument, is it not? These images certainly seem to "describing or identify something precisely" and are apparently a "detailed description" of the galaxy in a format not seen at all in canon, and both of those are the definition of a "specification". Cid's is also flat out wrong about there being no other options in canon, since the Voyager route map seen in the same episode can be used, or at least a reproduction or a larger bg sourced version of it. That meets all the "completely made up" requirements Cid seems to have about this thing, even though no where else have we expected an image to meet "Cid's rules" to be used. Also, how are these images not "fan reference works", since they aren't even trying to recreate canon material? - 01:16, February 17, 2012 (UTC) Also, for what's it worth, the was no useable outcome from the "semi-related discussion" about this, since Cid himself never responded, and I have no idea what you're last post (the month old one 31dot) about it was even saying. - 01:22, February 17, 2012 (UTC) :Are you referring to my posts on January 12th above? :You're right- I don't know that- but you don't know that either, so it seems to me we should accept it at face value(as the current policy) unless/until we have something to hang our hat on that it was a mistake. I also am honestly not sure how you can accuse Cid of nefarious scheming and plotting to keep these images when the very first edit in this section contains him saying "I will support this deletion" if it is decided to tighten up the image policy in this regard. (I don't care to debate it on this page either) I don't think he or anyone has that much time on their hands.--31dot 01:31, February 17, 2012 (UTC) Unused images *File:Novan-projectile-weapon.jpg *File:TNG remastered title sequence Enterprise.jpg *File:Beverly Crusher, 2366.jpg *File:Mp placeholder1.jpg *File:Mp placeholder2.jpg *File:Mp memoryalpha.jpg *File:Mp editing.jpg *File:Mp production.jpg *File:Mp alt.jpg Unused images. The last five are from the main page redesign mockups. - 17:51, February 15, 2012 (UTC) :Delete them all. --31dot 17:54, February 15, 2012 (UTC) 1992 Vulcan Just making sure this image isn't an image of a performer- seems to be a personal image otherwise. --31dot 23:04, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :Images without a copyright can be deleted after at least five days without being listed here first, and any valid copyright and citation should answer the question of if this is personal or not. - 01:35, February 17, 2012 (UTC)